The article has been written by Janhvi Shirsat, a student of NLU, Nagpur.
1. Supreme Court replied on permanent Bench of CAT at Union territory of J&K for service matters
The SC on Friday issued a note to the Centre and responded to the plea for the formation of a permanent bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for the hearing of Jammu & Kashmir service matters.
The Bench consisting of CJI SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy asked the center to respond in four weeks as plea filed by two Jammu residents, who sought quashing of government order which consisted of hearing for service matters arising from UT of J&K to CAT.
Court added points in the plea by stating that ad-hoc arrangement will be formed for CAT. Secondly, enunciate the violation of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1) (g), 14, and 21 by the petitioner.
2.Delhi High Court afresh the case for relaxation in the schedule for payment of rents
The question of entitling a tenant to seek suspension of rent on account of force majeure in lockdown was answered in Delhi High Court by rejecting a plea by Khan Market tenant. The Court analyzed the case and gave a detailed explanation of the suspension of rent due to force majeure.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Prathiba M Singh. Previously the eviction was filed under Section 14(1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. As followed the outbreak of COVID-19 the waiver of payment of rent under a contract which has a force majeure clause governed under Sections 32 & 56 of Indian Contract Act, 1872; 108 (b) (e) Transfer of property act, 1882. Under these sections the Court passed the order.
3.“During a medical emergency or a war emergency, anything can be done by the State,” said Telangana High Court
On the plea of violation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India Telangana HC emphasized that the “medical emergency” of COVID-19 pandemic cannot be cited as an excise to violate the right to life and health under Article 21.
The Bench consisting of MS Ramachandra Rao and K Lakshman highlighted the striking down the State Government’s total prohibition on treatment and testing of COVID-19 by private hospitals and laboratories as illogical, without legal basis, patently arbitrary and unreasonable.
Articles 359, 20, and 21 was referred by the court to deliver the judgment by saying that State cannot force citizens to be treated only in government hospitals.
4. Zoom app is banned for an official and personal purpose: SC
The bench consisting of CJI SA Bobde, Justices AS Bopanna, and Hrishikesh Roy today issued notice to center on PIL seeking a ban on the use of the Zoom app, as concerned for security and privacy issues.
The Zoombombing is a major concern of this petition where unknown and unauthorized persons sometimes join Zoom meetings which lead to indecent activities.
The app violates the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution as mentioned in the plea.